BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 276Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi35Mumbai12Jaipur10Chandigarh8Kolkata6Pune6Bangalore4Ahmedabad4SC2Agra1Telangana1Allahabad1Chennai1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Hyderabad1Jodhpur1Karnataka1Lucknow1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 153A4Section 158B4Section 1324Addition to Income4Section 271(1)(c)3Section 194I3Section 132(1)2Section 1532Section 2012

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 270/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

276C(1) issued on August 20, 2015, a notice dated August 7, 2015, under section 142(1) concerning transactions from Annual Information Returns (AIRs) and a summon under section 131 dated October 13, 2015. The assessee also failed to attend the hearing scheduled for December 28, 2015, in response to another notice under section 142(1). Therefore

Penalty2
TDS2
Unexplained Investment2

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 1562/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

276C(1) issued on August 20, 2015, a notice dated August 7, 2015, under section 142(1) concerning transactions from Annual Information Returns (AIRs) and a summon under section 131 dated October 13, 2015. The assessee also failed to attend the hearing scheduled for December 28, 2015, in response to another notice under section 142(1). Therefore

SHRUTIBEN V PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 656/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shrutiben V. Patel Ito, Ward-4(2)(5) 60, Shangrilla Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Thaltej Ahmedabad. Pan : Anupp 1796 K

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 194ISection 201Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

276C of the Act. This ground raised by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable. 5. Ground No.2 raised in the appeal reads as under: “2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO treating difference of opening cash balance mentioned in cash 3 book and closing cash balance mentioned in the Income Tax Return for Asst.Year

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1538/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Kumar Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

68, it cannot be said that this is a case of "no concealment" or of "no inaccurate" particulars of income and, therefore, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is leviable. The honourable High Court held in para 7 (quoted verbatim) as below: 7. ........ When this order was challenged, the Commissioner has ruled that the department has not discharged its burden